Welcome to the Judaism community on Codidact!

Will you help us build our community of learners? Drop into our study hall, ask questions, help others with answers to their questions, share a d'var torah if you're so inclined, invite your friends, and join us in building this community together. Not an ask-the-rabbi service, just people at all levels learning together.

Post History

60%

+1 −0

Meta Divrei Torah Category

On the question of quality control, I'm much more in favor of a passive approach over an active one. You might consider it l'havdil some form of "turn from evil" given priority over "do good," wher...

posted 4y ago by DonielF‭ · edited 4y ago by DonielF‭

Answer

#3: Post edited by

DonielF‭ · 2020-09-30T00:22:43Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

On the question of quality control, I'm much more in favor of a passive approach over an active one. You might consider it l'havdil some form of "turn from evil" given priority over "do good," where rather than expecting _high quality posts_ of users, we instead expect that they just _not be spam_.
Consider the following two policies (and remember that a post starts at 50% when it has no votes):
1. "All posts at least one week old with a Wilson score less than 75% will be removed."
2. "All posts which drop below a Wilson score of 40% will be removed."
My problem with #1 is in its demanding something of the user, almost a threat: you must satisfy this or else we don't want your post.
Contrast that with #2. The bar is much lower; even if everyone is completely apathetic toward your post, it's still welcome here. All we ask is that it not be so terrible that it receive an overwhelming negative response.
The other issue that needs to be balanced is the fact that a single downvote with no upvotes is equal to a score of 33%. Suppose we use my example number above, with 40%; that makes the following helpful™ table:
<table>
<tr>
<th>Downvotes</th>
<th>Minimum upvotes to stay above 40%</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7</td>
<td>5</td>
<tr>
</table>
I don't know about you, but I find it problematic that, especially at fewer downvotes, such a proportionally small amount of upvotes is sufficient to keep it above the threshold.
Now, one solution is just to increase the threshold even further. For the aforementioned reasons I strongly believe it should be set no higher than 50%, but the higher we set it, the more weight we give to downvotes.
Whatever system we implement, it needs to be sufficient to not give undue weight to neither upvotes' ability to keep a post open, nor downvotes' ability to remove it. Maybe we should designate a total vote amount X, where for (total votes)\<X the threshold is "no more than k amount of downvotes," and for (total votes)\>X, the threshold is "a Wilson score no lower than s."

On the question of quality control, I'm much more in favor of a passive approach over an active one. You might consider it l'havdil some form of "turn from evil" given priority over "do good," where rather than expecting _high quality posts_ of users, we instead expect that they just _not be spam_.
Consider the following two policies (and remember that a post starts at 50% when it has no votes):
1. "All posts at least one week old with a Wilson score less than 75% will be removed."
2. "All posts which drop below a Wilson score of 40% will be removed."
My problem with #1 is in its demanding something of the user, almost a threat: you must satisfy this or else we don't want your post.
Contrast that with #2. The bar is much lower; even if everyone is completely apathetic toward your post, it's still welcome here. All we ask is that it not be so terrible that it receive an overwhelming negative response.
The other issue that needs to be balanced is the fact that a single downvote with no upvotes is equal to a score of 33%. Suppose we use my example number above, with 40%; that makes the following helpful™ table:
<table>
<tr>
<th>Downvotes</th>
<th>Minimum upvotes to stay above 40%</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7</td>
<td>5</td>
<tr>
</table>
I don't know about you, but I find it problematic that, especially at fewer downvotes, such a proportionally small amount of upvotes is sufficient to keep it above the threshold.
Now, one solution is just to increase the threshold even further. For the aforementioned reasons I strongly believe it should be set no higher than 50%, but the higher we set it, the more weight we give to downvotes.
Whatever system we implement, it needs to be sufficient to not give undue weight to neither upvotes' ability to keep a post open, nor downvotes' ability to remove it.

#2: Post edited by

DonielF‭ · 2020-09-29T23:46:59Z (about 4 years ago)
HTML is weird

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

On the question of quality control, I'm much more in favor of a passive approach over an active one. You might consider it l'havdil some form of "turn from evil" given priority over "do good," where rather than expecting _high quality posts_ of users, we instead expect that they just _not be spam_.
Consider the following two policies (and remember that a post starts at 50% when it has no votes):
1. "All posts at least one week old with a Wilson score less than 75% will be removed."
2. "All posts which drop below a Wilson score of 40% will be removed."
My problem with #1 is in its demanding something of the user, almost a threat: you must satisfy this or else we don't want your post.
Contrast that with #2. The bar is much lower; even if everyone is completely apathetic toward your post, it's still welcome here. All we ask is that it not be so terrible that it receive an overwhelming negative response.
The other issue that needs to be balanced is the fact that a single downvote with no upvotes is equal to a score of 33%. Suppose we use my example number above, with 40%; that makes the following helpful™ table:
<table>
<tr>
<th>Downvotes</th>
<th>Minimum upvotes to stay above 40%</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7</td>
<td>5</td>
<tr>
</table>
I don't know about you, but I find it problematic that, especially at fewer downvotes, such a proportionally small amount of upvotes is sufficient to keep it above the threshold.
Now, one solution is just to increase the threshold even further. For the aforementioned reasons I strongly believe it should be set no higher than 50%, but the higher we set it, the more weight we give to downvotes.
Whatever system we implement, it needs to be sufficient to not give undue weight to neither upvotes' ability to keep a post open, nor downvotes' ability to remove it. Maybe we should designate a total vote amount X, where for (total votes)<X the threshold is "no more than k amount of downvotes," and for (total votes)>X, the threshold is "a Wilson score no lower than s."

On the question of quality control, I'm much more in favor of a passive approach over an active one. You might consider it l'havdil some form of "turn from evil" given priority over "do good," where rather than expecting _high quality posts_ of users, we instead expect that they just _not be spam_.
Consider the following two policies (and remember that a post starts at 50% when it has no votes):
1. "All posts at least one week old with a Wilson score less than 75% will be removed."
2. "All posts which drop below a Wilson score of 40% will be removed."
My problem with #1 is in its demanding something of the user, almost a threat: you must satisfy this or else we don't want your post.
Contrast that with #2. The bar is much lower; even if everyone is completely apathetic toward your post, it's still welcome here. All we ask is that it not be so terrible that it receive an overwhelming negative response.
The other issue that needs to be balanced is the fact that a single downvote with no upvotes is equal to a score of 33%. Suppose we use my example number above, with 40%; that makes the following helpful™ table:
<table>
<tr>
<th>Downvotes</th>
<th>Minimum upvotes to stay above 40%</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5</td>
<td>3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6</td>
<td>4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7</td>
<td>5</td>
<tr>
</table>
I don't know about you, but I find it problematic that, especially at fewer downvotes, such a proportionally small amount of upvotes is sufficient to keep it above the threshold.
Now, one solution is just to increase the threshold even further. For the aforementioned reasons I strongly believe it should be set no higher than 50%, but the higher we set it, the more weight we give to downvotes.
Whatever system we implement, it needs to be sufficient to not give undue weight to neither upvotes' ability to keep a post open, nor downvotes' ability to remove it. Maybe we should designate a total vote amount X, where for (total votes)\<X the threshold is "no more than k amount of downvotes," and for (total votes)\>X, the threshold is "a Wilson score no lower than s."

#1: Initial revision by

DonielF‭ · 2020-09-24T01:56:02Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

On the question of quality control, I'm much more in favor of a passive approach over an active one. You might consider it l'havdil some form of "turn from evil" given priority over "do good," where rather than expecting _high quality posts_ of users, we instead expect that they just _not be spam_.

Consider the following two policies (and remember that a post starts at 50% when it has no votes):

1. "All posts at least one week old with a Wilson score less than 75% will be removed."
2. "All posts which drop below a Wilson score of 40% will be removed."

My problem with #1 is in its demanding something of the user, almost a threat: you must satisfy this or else we don't want your post.

Contrast that with #2. The bar is much lower; even if everyone is completely apathetic toward your post, it's still welcome here. All we ask is that it not be so terrible that it receive an overwhelming negative response.

The other issue that needs to be balanced is the fact that a single downvote with no upvotes is equal to a score of 33%. Suppose we use my example number above, with 40%; that makes the following helpful™ table:

<table>
  <tr>
    <th>Downvotes</th>
    <th>Minimum upvotes to stay above 40%</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>2</td>
    <td>1</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>3</td>
    <td>2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>4</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>5</td>
    <td>3</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>6</td>
    <td>4</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
  	<td>7</td>
    <td>5</td>
<tr>
</table>

I don't know about you, but I find it problematic that, especially at fewer downvotes, such a proportionally small amount of upvotes is sufficient to keep it above the threshold.

Now, one solution is just to increase the threshold even further. For the aforementioned reasons I strongly believe it should be set no higher than 50%, but the higher we set it, the more weight we give to downvotes.

Whatever system we implement, it needs to be sufficient to not give undue weight to neither upvotes' ability to keep a post open, nor downvotes' ability to remove it. Maybe we should designate a total vote amount X, where for (total votes)<X the threshold is "no more than k amount of downvotes," and for (total votes)>X, the threshold is "a Wilson score no lower than s."

Communities

Post History